Lease agreement executed by mother of minor held void.

Plaintiff is the appellant.

2. Averments in the plaint are as follows: The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same on 211. 1968 through her guard-ian mother. The mother of the plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement with M/s.Caltex India Limited on 8. 1974. M/s.Caltex India Limited got a amalgamated with the defendant with effect from 5. 1978. M/s.Caltex India Limited was running a petrol and diesel fuelling station and a service station in the suit property. The lease agreement between the plaintiff’s mother and M/s.Caltex India Limited expired on 30.6.1979. The defendant had requested the mother of the plaintiff for renewal of the lease for a further period of five years from 7. 1979 as per their letter dated 20.11.1978. The plaintiff sent a letter stating that she does not propose to ratify the lease deed and requested vacant possession to be handed over to her. Defendant’s counsel had called upon the plaintiff through her counsel to renew the lease. The plaintiff sent a reply stating that she is not ratifying the lease agreement between M/ s.Caltex India Limited and the plaintiff’s mother. The defendant had sent a reply containing false allegations. The lease agreement between the mother of the plaintiff and Caltex India Limited will not bind the plaintiff in any way, since she was a minor at the time of the agreement. The defendant was sending the rent till the end of June, 1979 only to the plaintiff’s mother. It is only from July, 1979, the defendant is sending the rent to the plaintiff. It was refused by the plaintiff. The demand draft sent by the defendant has been sent back by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff has filed the suit for setting aside the agreement between the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant among other grounds that she has not been made an eo nominee party to the suit document. Plaintiff is entitled to get back vacant possession and damages for use and occupation at Rs.2,000 per month and also future mesne profits at the same rate from July, 1979 till delivery of possession of the suit properties.

3. The defendant in his written statement contends as follows: The allegation that the plaintiff purchased the suit property when she was a minor represented by her mother as guardian is not true. M/s.Caltex India Limited had been in occupation of the suit property as a tenant from 7. 1959 as per the agreement dated 211. 1959. The sale deed provided that the purchaser shall be entitled to collect the rent from 7. 1969. At the request of the plaintiff’s father on the ground that there is a change of ownership for the property, the lease agreement has been entered into between M/s.Caltex India Limited and the mother of the plaintiff for five years from 7. 1969. The lease deed has provided for renewal of the same for another term on monthly rent of Rs.500. It was as per this provision, the lease deed was executed by the plaintiff’s natural guardian viz., mother. Half the rent for the entire five years was paid in one lump sum and the balance is being paid monthly. The lease deed was executed by the mother of the plaintiff for the benefit of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had enjoyed the benefits for the full period of the lease. It is therefore binding on the plaintiff. The allegation that the lease deed is not binding on her is not tenable. The allegation that the plaintiff has revoked the lease is untrue. There is no question of revocation after the expiry of the lease period. The defendant is entitled to have the lease renewed for a further period. The claim for setting aside the lease which had already expired and also for declaration that it is not binding on the plaintiff is not maintainable. The defendant has sent a suitable reply to the plaintiff’s notice. The claim for Rs.2,000 per month as damages is not tenable. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.

4. The defendant in the additional written statement filed, has also claimed th